Can You Skip a Dhyāna Entirely?

"For a first dhyāna associated with flavor [craving] — should its entry be called 'flavor,' and its exit be called 'flavor'?" — and so on in full. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to bring certainty to those in doubt. For the *Prakaraṇapāda* states: what is the first dhyāna? Answer: the wholesome matter, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness subsumed under the first dhyāna — and so on down to: what is the fourth dhyāna? Answer: the wholesome matter, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness subsumed under the fourth dhyāna. Lest this give rise to the doubt that dhyāna is exclusively wholesome, it is in order to make clear that dhyāna is not exclusively wholesome — since dhyāna spans the wholesome, the defiled, and the unobscured-neutral alike — that this treatise is composed on flavor-association. "Should the entry of a flavor-associated first dhyāna be called 'flavor,' and its exit be called 'flavor'?" Answer: with respect to what does the flavoring, it should be called "entry"; with respect to what is flavored, it should be called "exit." And so on down to: "Should the entry of a flavor-associated sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception be called 'flavor,' and its exit be called 'flavor'?" Answer: with respect to what does the flavoring, it should be called "entry"; with respect to what is flavored, it should be called "exit." Here, craving is what is meant by "flavor"; a concentration named "the first dhyāna" and so on that is associated precisely with craving — any such concentration is called a "flavor-associated dhyāna or formless attainment." Question: why does this passage speak only of association with craving, and not with any other defilement? Answer: this is simply what the author of this treatise intended — and so on in full. Some hold: the other defilements ought to have been mentioned as well — that is, one ought to speak of a first dhyāna associated with the view of self, asking whether its entry should be called "grasping at self and what belongs to self," and its exit likewise; with respect to what does the grasping, it should be called "entry," and with respect to what is grasped, it should be called "exit" — and so on in full, down to a first dhyāna associated with ignorance, asking whether its entry should be called "delusion," and its exit likewise; with respect to what does the deluding, it should be called "entry," and with respect to what is deluded, it should be called "exit" — the same holding clear through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. That this treatise does not go on to state this should be understood as an incompleteness in the text. Others hold: this passage singles out craving merely as a representative gateway, so that the reader will understand the same holds for the other defilements as well. Others hold: this passage speaks specifically of what most closely resembles concentration itself — namely, craving alone, and not the other defilements. Why so? Because concentration flows on continuously with respect to its object, and craving does likewise; furthermore, concentration apprehends its object with careful, minute scrutiny, and craving does likewise; furthermore, concentration binds the mind to its object without ever letting go, and craving does likewise; furthermore, concentration takes up its object and turns wholly toward it, and craving does likewise; furthermore, concentration is capable of nourishing and increasing the faculties and the great elements, and craving does likewise — the other defilements possess none of these characteristics, and so are not said to be "associated" with concentration in this special sense. Question: "flavor" refers to craving, not to dhyāna and the rest, and so one ought not to speak of dhyāna's own "entry"; conversely, dhyāna and the rest are a concentration, not craving, and so one ought not to speak of a concentration's "flavor," since "flavor" is properly a word for craving. Why, then, do these two things come to borrow each other's names? Answer: because these two things are mutually associated with one another, borrowing each other's names in turn — what fault could there be in this? Since concentration is associated with craving, it too may be named "flavor"; and since craving is associated with concentration, it too may be spoken of as having "entry." As for "entry" and "exit" here, there are five kinds of entry and exit: first, by ground; second, by aspect; third, by object; fourth, by a mind of a different class; and fifth, by instant. Entry and exit by ground: this refers to the moment when, immediately following the first dhyāna, the second dhyāna becomes currently manifest — this is called "entering the second dhyāna" and "exiting the first dhyāna"; and so on clear through the sphere of nothing-at-all, when, immediately following it, the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception becomes currently manifest, this is called "entering the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception" and "exiting the sphere of nothing-at-all." Just as entry and exit proceed in forward order, so too do they proceed in reverse order, and in leaping order both forward and reverse.

Entry and exit by aspect: this refers to the moment when, immediately following the aspect of impermanence, the aspect of suffering becomes currently manifest — this is called "entering the aspect of suffering,"

and "exiting the aspect of impermanence" — the same holding for the remaining aspects. Entry and exit by object: this refers to the moment when, immediately following a concentration taking matter as its object, a concentration taking feeling as its object becomes currently manifest — this is called "entering the concentration taking feeling as its object" and "exiting the concentration taking matter as its object" — the same holding for the remaining objects. Entry and exit by a mind of a different class:

this refers to the moment when, immediately following a desire-realm mind, a form-realm or unfettered mind becomes currently manifest — this is called "entering a form-realm or unfettered mind" and "exiting a desire-realm mind" — the same holding for a form-realm mind and the rest; and just as with a desire-realm mind and the rest, so too with a trainee's mind and the rest, and with every other wholesome mind and the rest, as appropriate. Entry and exit by instant: this refers to the moment when, immediately following the first instant, the second instant becomes currently manifest — this is called "entering the second instant" and "exiting the first instant" — the same holding for the remaining instants. Among these five kinds of entry and exit, this treatise's own question is composed with reference to entry and exit by instant. As for "with respect to what does the flavoring, it should be called 'entry,' and with respect to what is flavored, it should be called 'exit'": some hold that this passage refers to a flavor-associated concentration whose flow continues on currently manifest, such that, in every case, the earlier instant serves as what is flavored, being the object, while the later instant serves as what does the flavoring, being the subject. As for "with respect to what does the flavoring, it should be called 'entry'": this refers to each successive later instant, at which point, once a flavor-associated dhyāna or formless attainment has become currently manifest, it is called "having entered with respect to what does the flavoring," since only once it has already arisen does it come to constitute what does the flavoring. As for "with respect to what is flavored, it should be called 'exit'": this refers to each successive earlier instant's flavor-associated dhyāna or formless attainment, at the moment it has already ceased, at which point it is called "having exited with respect to what is flavored," since only once it has already ceased does it come to constitute what is flavored. Question: a craving-associated concentration is capable of taking any of the three time-periods as its object — why does this passage speak only of taking the past as its object? Some hold: this passage speaks only of the majority of cases, since it is simply the nature of sentient beings, for the most part, to give rise to a craving-flavor with respect to an agreeable object previously experienced. Others hold: a past concentration has already conferred its own benefit within the mental continuum, and a present concentration, arising from that very benefit, gives rise to craving through nostalgic longing for it. Others hold: this passage frames its question and answer specifically in terms of entering and exiting a concentration — a future concentration is not yet spoken of as either entered or exited; a present concentration is spoken of as entered but not yet exited; a past concentration is spoken of as both entered and already exited — and, since this passage wishes to make clear that the flavor-craving arises precisely with respect to the already-exited state, it speaks only of taking the past as its object. Other masters hold: this passage speaks of a flavor-associated concentration arising immediately following a pure concentration, such that the pure concentration serves as what is flavored, being the object, while the flavor-associated concentration itself serves as what does the flavoring, being the subject — the remainder as stated above. The verdict: the first position stated should be understood as the sound one, since this passage's own account of entry and exit is composed entirely with reference to the flavor-associated concentration itself. "Are all flavor-associated first dhyānas obscured-neutral?" — and so on in full. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: the preceding passage spoke only of a craving-associated concentration; this treatise now wishes to make clear that a concentration can also be associated with the other defilements, and it is for this reason that it is composed. "Are all flavor-associated first dhyānas obscured-neutral? Conversely, are all obscured-neutral first dhyānas flavor-associated?" Answer: every flavor-associated first dhyāna is indeed obscured-neutral; but there exist obscured-neutral first dhyānas that are not flavor-associated — namely, those in which some defilement other than craving is currently manifest. And so on down to: "Are all flavor-associated spheres of neither-perception-nor-non-perception obscured-neutral? Conversely, are all obscured-neutral spheres of neither-perception-nor-non-perception flavor-associated?" Answer: every flavor-associated sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is indeed obscured-neutral; but there exist obscured-neutral spheres of neither-perception-nor-non-perception that are not flavor-associated — namely, those in which some defilement other than craving is currently manifest. Here, the reason every flavor-associated dhyāna or formless attainment is obscured-neutral is that it is capable of obstructing the noble path and its own preparatory practice, and is hence called "obscured"; and it does not invite a ripening-fruit, and is hence called "neutral." The other defilements referred to here are view, doubt, conceit, and ignorance — these defilements, arising in continuous succession together with an undefiled dhyāna or formless attainment, currently manifest, lead a yoga practitioner to be named one whose craving has "climbed atop" the dhyāna, one whose view has climbed atop the dhyāna, one whose doubt has climbed atop the dhyāna, or one whose conceit has climbed atop the dhyāna — and, although there is also a sense in which the remaining bonds, secondary defilements, and taints may be said to be associated in just the same way, it is only the defilements themselves that are named here, since they are the most prominent. "Is there ever a case of not entering the first dhyāna, yet entering the second dhyāna?" Answer: yes. And so on down to: "Is there ever a case of not entering the sphere of nothing-at-all, yet entering the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception?" Answer: yes. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to bring certainty to those in doubt. For the *Prakaraṇapāda* states that "first" means that which, among a sequence proceeding in proper order and continuous succession, is counted as the very first — or, alternatively, that which, among the concentrations entered in proper sequential order and continuous succession, comes first of all. The sūtras, too, speak of the nine sequential concentrations. This might give rise to the doubt that, unless one enters the first dhyāna and so on first, one cannot enter the second dhyāna and so on at all —

and it is in order to bring certainty to this very doubt, by making clear that one can indeed enter the second dhyāna and so on without first entering the first dhyāna and so on, that this treatise is composed.

"Is there ever a case of not entering the first dhyāna, yet entering the second dhyāna?" Answer: yes. How does one enter it? This refers to the moment when, immediately following the stage of proximate access, or the meditative interval, or the second dhyāna's own proximate access, or the second dhyāna itself, or the third dhyāna's own proximate access, or the third dhyāna itself, or the fourth dhyāna, the second dhyāna becomes currently manifest. On this point, some hold: immediately following a desire-realm wholesome mind, one can only enter the stage of proximate access. Others hold: one can also enter the first dhyāna. Others hold: one can also enter the meditative interval. The Venerable Saṃghavasu states: one can also enter the second dhyāna, just as one who leaps over concentrations can, immediately following the first dhyāna, leap over the second dhyāna and enter the third — and, in just the same way, one ought to be able, immediately following a desire-realm wholesome mind, to leap over the first dhyāna and enter the second. This is untenable, since a desire-realm wholesome mind is not itself a concentrated mind, and cannot properly be said to share the very same power as a genuinely concentrated mind. "Is there ever a case of not entering the second dhyāna, yet entering the third dhyāna?" Answer: yes. How does one enter it? This refers to the moment when, immediately following the first dhyāna, or the third dhyāna's own proximate access, or the third dhyāna itself, or the fourth dhyāna's own proximate access, or the fourth dhyāna itself, or the sphere of infinite space, the third dhyāna becomes currently manifest. Some hold: also, immediately following the second dhyāna's own proximate access, the third dhyāna becomes currently manifest. "Is there ever a case of not entering the third dhyāna, yet entering the fourth dhyāna?" Answer: yes. How does one enter it? This refers to the moment when, immediately following the second dhyāna, or the fourth dhyāna's own proximate access, or the fourth dhyāna itself, or the sphere of infinite space's own proximate access, or the sphere of infinite space itself, or the sphere of infinite consciousness, the fourth dhyāna becomes currently manifest. Some hold: also, immediately following the third dhyāna's own proximate access, the fourth dhyāna becomes currently manifest. The very same pattern holds clear through to: "Is there ever a case of not entering the sphere of nothing-at-all, yet entering the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception?" Answer: yes. How does one enter it? This refers to the moment when, immediately following the sphere of infinite consciousness, or the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own proximate access, or the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception itself, the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception becomes currently manifest. Some hold: also, immediately following the sphere of nothing-at-all's own proximate access, the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception becomes currently manifest. This passage rules out only a single instant's own immediate predecessor, but does not rule out an entire continuous succession, a whole phase, or an entire class of homogeneous existence, nor does it rule out something extending from beginningless time — that is, it rules out only that the instant immediately preceding entry into a given concentration was not itself an entry into that same concentration, since it does not follow that no other instant had ever entered it before; a continuous succession and the rest are not ruled out by this passage. By this same line of reasoning, it should be understood that there can likewise be a rule excluding two, three, and so on up through seven prior instants. That is: "Is there ever a case of not entering either the first or the second dhyāna, yet entering the third dhyāna?" Answer: yes — this refers to one who, based on the stage of proximate access, becomes free from the defilement of the desire realm clear through the second dhyāna, and, at death, is reborn in the third dhyāna, or who dies in a higher ground and is reborn in the third dhyāna, at which point that very third dhyāna becomes currently manifest. And so on clear through to: "Is there ever a case of not entering any of the four dhyānas or the lower three formless spheres, yet entering the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception?" Answer: yes — this refers to one who, based on the stage of proximate access, becomes free from the defilement of the desire realm clear through the sphere of nothing-at-all, and, at death, is reborn in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, at which point that very concentration of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception becomes currently manifest. This passage rules out, in this way, anywhere from a single instant up through an entire class of homogeneous existence, but does not rule out something extending from beginningless time; and in speaking of such a case existing, it likewise does not rule out an entire class of homogeneous existence, nor perhaps an entire phase — the meaning here is not in conflict, and should be understood according to what was stated before.

"Is there ever a case of not entering the first dhyāna, yet being reborn in the Brahma-world?" Answer: yes. And so on down to: "Is there ever a case of not entering the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,

yet being reborn in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception?" Answer: yes. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to bring certainty to those in doubt.

For a sūtra states that one first enters that concentration, and only afterward is reborn within it — and so on in full. This might give rise to the doubt that one must first enter that concentration in order to be reborn there at all. It is in order to bring certainty to this very doubt, by making clear that one can indeed be reborn there without ever entering that concentration, that this treatise is composed. Question: if so, how is that sūtra passage to be reconciled? Answer: there are sentient beings who first enter that concentration and are only afterward reborn within it, and there are sentient beings who, without ever entering that concentration, are nonetheless reborn there as well. The sūtra speaks of the case where one enters the concentration and is then reborn there; the Abhidharma speaks of the case where one is reborn there without ever entering the concentration —

and, understood in this way, the two accounts are both properly reconciled. Question: if one can be reborn there without ever entering that concentration, why did the World-Honored One speak only of the case where one enters the concentration and is then reborn in that place? Answer: certain non-Buddhist teachers hold that beings such as the Brahmā gods are not attained through cultivating concentration at all — the World-Honored One, in speaking of first entering that concentration and only afterward being reborn there, wished to instill firm confidence that a fruit is obtained through its proper cause. Furthermore, there are sentient beings deeply attached to some small portion of present sensual pleasure, unwilling to delight in the superior fruit of freedom from desire yet to come — the World-Honored One, for their sake, disparaged sensual pleasure and praised the fruit of freedom from desire, and, once those beings had heard this and rejoiced, they asked him to explain its cause, and so the Buddha explained that one first enters that concentration and is then reborn in that place. Furthermore, there are sentient beings who, upon hearing of the superior fruit of freedom from desire belonging to the upper realms, do not give rise to confident understanding — the Buddha's own intention was to make clear that, if one is able to enter that fundamental concentration, one presently experiences its superior bliss, thereby letting them know that its fruit is even more excellent and sublime, and so the Buddha explained that one first enters that concentration and is then reborn within it. Furthermore, there are yoga practitioners capable of entering that concentration who, though they wish to be reborn there, do not presently enter it — and so the Buddha explained that one first enters that concentration and only afterward is reborn there. Furthermore, there are yoga practitioners who, though they are weary of the desire realm's suffering and seek the bliss of freedom from desire, are nonetheless indolent and do not cultivate the very dharmas of freedom from desire — and so the Buddha explained that one first enters that concentration and is then reborn in that place. "Is there ever a case of not entering the first dhyāna, yet being reborn in the Brahma-world?" Answer: yes. How does this rebirth occur? This refers to one who, based on the stage of proximate access, becomes free from the defilement of the desire realm — at the final path of liberation, and thereafter, without ever entering the first dhyāna — and, if such a one has not yet become free from the defilement of the first dhyāna and then dies, he must certainly be reborn in the Brahma-world, or else dies in a higher ground and is reborn among those very gods. Question: without ever having given rise to that concentration, how can one be reborn there, given the absence of any ripening-cause? Answer: karma to be experienced in a subsequent life serves as the ripening-cause, and it is by this means that rebirth there is obtained. "Is there ever a case of not entering the second dhyāna, yet being reborn among the gods of pure radiance?" Answer: yes. How does this rebirth occur? This refers to one who, based on any one of the stage of proximate access, the first dhyāna, the meditative interval, or the second dhyāna's own proximate access, becomes free from the defilement of the first dhyāna without ever entering the second dhyāna — and, if such a one has not yet become free from the defilement of the second dhyāna and then dies, he must certainly be reborn among the gods of pure radiance, or else dies in a higher ground and is reborn among those very gods. "Is there ever a case of not entering the third dhyāna, yet being reborn among the gods of universal purity?"

Answer: yes. How does this rebirth occur? This refers to one who, based on any one of the stage of proximate access, the first dhyāna, the meditative interval, the second dhyāna, or the third dhyāna's own proximate access, becomes free from the defilement of the second dhyāna without ever entering the third dhyāna — and, if such a one has not yet become free from the defilement of the third dhyāna and then dies, he must certainly be reborn among the gods of universal purity, or else dies in a higher ground and is reborn among those very gods. The very same pattern holds clear through to: "Is there ever a case of not entering the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, yet being reborn in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception?" Answer: yes. How does this rebirth occur? This refers to one who, based on any one ground from the stage of proximate access up through the sphere of nothing-at-all, becomes free from the defilement of the sphere of nothing-at-all but not yet free from the defilement above it, and, without ever entering the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, then dies — he must certainly be reborn in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. This passage rules out a single instant, an entire continuous succession, a whole phase, and an entire class of homogeneous existence, but does not rule out something extending from beginningless time.

"If one has attained the first dhyāna but not the second, where is one reborn at death?" — and so on in full. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to bring certainty to those in doubt. For the World-Honored One states: "Monks, you should know that I say the outflows can be exhausted in dependence on the first dhyāna, and likewise in dependence on the second dhyāna, clear through the sphere of nothing-at-all." Lest this give rise to the doubt that the outflows can be exhausted only in dependence on a fundamental concentration, and not on the stage of proximate access and the rest — it is in order to bring certainty to this very doubt, by making clear that the outflows can be exhausted in dependence on all nine grounds (the seven fundamental grounds, the stage of proximate access, and the meditative interval, together with the remaining proximate-access grounds), even though the latter, while incapable of full exhaustion, are nonetheless capable of severing the defilements, that this treatise is composed. Attainment, however, is of two kinds: first, currently-manifest attainment; second, possessed attainment — this passage's own question is composed with reference to currently-manifest attainment. "If one has attained the first dhyāna but not the second, where is one reborn at death?" Answer: one may be reborn in the Brahma-world, among the gods of pure radiance, among the gods of universal purity, among the gods of vast fruit, in the sphere of infinite space, in the sphere of infinite consciousness, in the sphere of nothing-at-all, in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, or in no place of rebirth at all.

By "one who has currently-manifest attainment of the first dhyāna but not the second" is meant: one who has certainly already become free from the defilement of the desire realm, while his status with respect to the higher grounds remains undetermined.

Among such persons, if one has not yet become free from the defilement of the first dhyāna, he is reborn, at death, in the Brahma-world. If, based on any one of the stage of proximate access, the first dhyāna, the meditative interval, or the second dhyāna's own proximate access, one becomes free from the defilement of the first dhyāna — at the final path of liberation, and thereafter, without ever entering the second dhyāna — and has not yet become free from the defilement of the second dhyāna, he is reborn, at death, among the gods of pure radiance. That very person, if, based on the stage of proximate access,

the first dhyāna, or the meditative interval, becomes free from the defilement of the second dhyāna but not yet free from the defilement above it, is reborn, at death, among the gods of universal purity.

If, based on any one of those same three grounds, one becomes free from the defilement of the third dhyāna but not yet free from the defilement above it, he is reborn, at death, among the gods of vast fruit. The very same pattern holds clear through to: if, based on any one of those same three grounds, one becomes free from the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he has, at death, no place of rebirth at all, since he has already become free from the defilement of all three realms. "If one has attained the second dhyāna but not the third, where is one reborn at death?" Answer: one may be reborn among the gods of pure radiance, among the gods of universal purity, and so on down to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, or in no place of rebirth at all. By "one who has currently-manifest attainment of the second dhyāna but not the third" is meant: one who has certainly already become free from the defilement of the first dhyāna, while his status with respect to the higher grounds remains undetermined. Among such persons, if one has not yet become free from the defilement of the second dhyāna, he is reborn, at death, among the gods of pure radiance. If, based on any one of the stage of proximate access, the first dhyāna, the meditative interval, the second dhyāna, or the third dhyāna's own proximate access, one becomes free from the defilement of the second dhyāna without ever entering the third dhyāna, and has not yet become free from the defilement of the third dhyāna, he is reborn, at death, among the gods of universal purity. That very person, if, based on the stage of proximate access, the first dhyāna, or the meditative interval,

or the second dhyāna, becomes free from the defilement of the third dhyāna but not yet free from the defilement above it, is reborn, at death, among the gods of vast fruit. If, based on any one of those same four grounds, one becomes free from the defilement of the fourth dhyāna but not yet free from the defilement above it, he is reborn, at death, in the sphere of infinite space. The very same pattern holds clear through to: if, based on any one of those same four grounds, one becomes free from the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he has, at death, no place of rebirth at all. "If one has attained the third dhyāna but not the fourth, where is one reborn at death?" Answer: one may be reborn among the gods of universal purity, among the gods of vast fruit, and so on down to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, or in no place of rebirth at all. By "one who has currently-manifest attainment of the third dhyāna but not the fourth" is meant:

one who has certainly already become free from the defilement of the second dhyāna, while his status with respect to the higher grounds remains undetermined. Among such persons, if one has not yet become free from the defilement of the third dhyāna, he is reborn, at death, among the gods of universal purity. If, based on any one ground from the stage of proximate access up through the third dhyāna, one becomes free from the defilement of the third dhyāna but not yet free from the defilement above it, he is reborn, at death, among the gods of vast fruit. If, based on any one of those same five grounds, one becomes free from the defilement of the fourth dhyāna but not yet free from the defilement above it, he is reborn, at death, in the sphere of infinite space. The very same pattern holds clear through to: if, based on any one of those same five grounds, one becomes free from the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he has, at death, no place of rebirth at all. "If one has attained the fourth dhyāna but not the sphere of infinite space, where is one reborn at death?" Answer: one may be reborn among the gods of vast fruit, and so on down to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, or in no place of rebirth at all. By "one who has currently-manifest attainment of the fourth dhyāna but not the sphere of infinite space" is meant: one who has certainly already become free from the defilement of the third dhyāna, while his status with respect to the higher grounds remains undetermined. Among such persons, if one has not yet become free from the defilement of the fourth dhyāna, he is reborn, at death, among the gods of vast fruit. If, based on any one ground from the stage of proximate access up through the fourth dhyāna,

one becomes free from the defilement of the fourth dhyāna but not yet free from the defilement above it, he is reborn, at death, in the sphere of infinite space. If, based on any one of those same six grounds, one becomes free from the defilement of the sphere of infinite space but not yet free from the defilement above it, he is reborn, at death, in the sphere of infinite consciousness. The very same pattern holds clear through to: if, based on any one of those same six grounds, one becomes free from the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he has, at death, no place of rebirth at all. "If one has attained the sphere of infinite space but not the sphere of infinite consciousness, where is one reborn at death?" Answer: one may be reborn in the sphere of infinite space, and so on down to no place of rebirth at all. By "one who has currently-manifest attainment of the sphere of infinite space but not the sphere of infinite consciousness" is meant: one who has certainly already become free from the defilement of the fourth dhyāna, while his status with respect to the higher grounds remains undetermined. Among such persons, if one has not yet become free from the defilement of the sphere of infinite space, he is reborn, at death, in the sphere of infinite space. If, based on any one ground from the stage of proximate access up through the sphere of infinite space, one becomes free from the defilement of the sphere of infinite space but not yet free from the defilement above it, he is reborn, at death, in the sphere of infinite consciousness.

The very same pattern holds clear through to: if, based on any one of those same seven grounds, one becomes free from the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he has, at death, no place of rebirth at all.

"If one has attained the sphere of infinite consciousness but not the sphere of nothing-at-all, where is one reborn at death?" Answer: one may be reborn in the sphere of infinite consciousness, and so on down to no place of rebirth at all. By "one who has currently-manifest attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness but not the sphere of nothing-at-all" is meant: one who has certainly already become free from the defilement of the sphere of infinite space, while his status with respect to the higher grounds remains undetermined. Among such persons, if one has not yet become free from the defilement of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he is reborn, at death, in the sphere of infinite consciousness. If, based on any one ground from the stage of proximate access up through the sphere of infinite consciousness, one becomes free from the defilement of the sphere of infinite consciousness but not yet free from the defilement above it, he is reborn, at death, in the sphere of nothing-at-all. The very same pattern holds clear through to: if, based on any one of those same eight grounds, one becomes free from the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he has, at death, no place of rebirth at all. "If one has attained the sphere of nothing-at-all but not the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, where is one reborn at death?" Answer: one may be reborn in the sphere of nothing-at-all, and so on down to no place of rebirth at all. By "one who has currently-manifest attainment of the sphere of nothing-at-all but not the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception" is meant: one who has certainly already become free from the defilement of the sphere of infinite consciousness, while his status with respect to the higher grounds remains undetermined. Among such persons, if one has not yet become free from the defilement of the sphere of nothing-at-all,

he is reborn, at death, in the sphere of nothing-at-all. If, based on any one ground from the stage of proximate access up through the sphere of nothing-at-all, one becomes free from the defilement of the sphere of nothing-at-all but not yet free from the defilement above it, he is reborn, at death, in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. If, based on any one of those same nine grounds, one becomes free from the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he has, at death, no place of rebirth at all. By this same line of reasoning, it should be understood that there can likewise be a case of having attained two, three, and so on up through seven grounds — and the corresponding exclusions hold in just the same way. Answer: since the underlying principle is no different in each case, it is not stated in full. Question: if one has attained a desire-realm wholesome mind but not the first dhyāna,

why does this passage not ask where such a one is reborn at death? Some hold: this too ought to have been stated — namely, "if one has attained a desire-realm wholesome mind but not the first dhyāna, where is one reborn at death?" Answer: one may be reborn in the desire realm, in the Brahma-world, and so on down to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,

or in no place of rebirth at all. By "one who has currently-manifest attainment of a desire-realm wholesome mind but not the first dhyāna" is meant: one who is certainly located within the desire realm, while his freedom from defilement remains undetermined. That is, if such a one has not yet become free from the defilement of the desire realm, he is reborn, at death, back in the desire realm once again. If, based on the stage of proximate access, one becomes free from the defilement of the desire realm —

at the final path of liberation, and thereafter, without ever entering the first dhyāna, and has not yet become free from the defilement of the first dhyāna, he is reborn, at death, in the Brahma-world.

That very person, if, based on the stage of proximate access, he becomes free from the defilement of the first dhyāna but not yet free from the defilement above it, he is reborn, at death, among the gods of pure radiance — and so on clear through to: if, based on the stage of proximate access, he becomes free from the defilement of the sphere of nothing-at-all but not yet free from the defilement above it, he is reborn, at death, in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

If, based on the stage of proximate access, he becomes free from the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he has, at death, no place of rebirth at all — this ought to have been stated, and its omission should be understood as an incompleteness in the text. Others hold: this passage ought not to have raised the question of the desire realm at all, since this is the Concentration Aggregate, whose proper subject of question and answer is concentration and its fruit — the desire realm is neither a concentration nor a concentration's fruit, and it is for this reason that it is not mentioned. Question: one who has attained the first dhyāna but not the second, and so on, is also, at death, reborn in the desire realm and the like — why is this not stated here? Some hold: this too ought to have been stated — that such a person may be reborn in every lower ground — and its omission should be understood as an incompleteness in the text. Others hold: this being the Concentration Aggregate, its proper purpose is to make clear rebirth in a ground of concentration; were it to speak of rebirth in a lower ground, this would carry the fault of implying rebirth in the desire realm's own non-concentrated ground, and it is for this reason that it is not stated. Others hold: this passage speaks specifically of those who, having attained various concentrations, die and are reborn elsewhere; those reborn in a lower ground have thereby regressed from and relinquished those concentrations, and it is for this reason that it is not stated. Question: those reborn in a higher ground likewise relinquish their concentrations at the moment of death — why, then, is their case stated? Answer: those reborn in a higher ground, although they relinquish something, are still properly called "advancing further," let alone having gained something; those reborn in a lower ground, although they have gained something, are still properly called "regressing and falling," let alone having relinquished something — and since this Concentration Aggregate's proper purpose is precisely to display advancement, it is for this reason that the lower-ground case is not stated. Question: a sūtra states only that the outflows can be exhausted in dependence on the first dhyāna clear through the sphere of nothing-at-all — how, then, is it known that the meditative interval and the stage of proximate access can likewise serve as the basis for exhausting the outflows?

Answer: the World-Honored One states that there are three kinds of concentration capable of exhausting the outflows — namely, that accompanied by both investigation and reflection, that accompanied by reflection alone without investigation, and that accompanied by neither investigation nor reflection.

Another sūtra, moreover, states that the first dhyāna is named "accompanied by both investigation and reflection," while the second dhyāna and above are named "accompanied by neither investigation nor reflection" — if there were no meditative interval, what, then, would be named "accompanied by reflection alone without investigation"? By this it is known that the meditative interval too can serve as the basis for exhausting the outflows. A sūtra, furthermore, states that the Buddha told the monks: "I do not say only that the outflows can be exhausted in dependence on the first dhyāna, accompanied by investigation and reflection, born of seclusion from unwholesome and evil dharmas, replete with joy and happiness, and fully dwelt in — for the outflows can also be exhausted through insight arisen from wisdom alone." This sūtra thereby makes clear that the stage of proximate access too can serve as the basis for exhausting the outflows. Furthermore, a noble one not yet free from the defilement of desire, who has not yet attained any dhyāna, can nonetheless directly perceive the noble truths — if there were no stage of proximate access to serve as a basis, how could the noble path possibly arise at all, permanently severing the outflows? By this it is likewise known that the stage of proximate access can serve as the basis for exhausting the outflows. Question: why does the sūtra not simply state that the first dhyāna and the rest are themselves capable of exhausting the outflows, but instead speaks of exhausting them "in dependence on" them? Some hold: a dhyāna may sometimes be a previously attained one — if the World-Honored One had stated that the first dhyāna and the rest are themselves capable of exhausting the outflows, then the ignorant might suppose that whoever has attained a dhyāna has thereby already exhausted the outflows, and it is for this reason that the Buddha spoke instead of exhausting the outflows "in dependence on" a dhyāna and the rest — that is, only by giving rise to the uncontaminated path in dependence on it can the outflows actually be exhausted. Others hold: every concentration is merely tranquility, and only insight can actually exhaust the outflows — hence the sūtra speaks of depending on a concentration in order to give rise to wisdom. Others hold: a concentration is, for the most part, something previously attained, and, lest one become attached to it and unwilling to advance further in cultivation, the sūtra speaks of depending on it in order to seek the superior path further, rather than giving rise to attachment toward it. Question: a sūtra states that the awakening-factor of mindfulness is cultivated "together with" the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; another sūtra, moreover, states that, clear through the concentration of "neither perception nor non-perception," one is able to correctly penetrate and correctly discern the noble meaning; yet an earlier sūtra also states that the outflows can be exhausted in dependence on the first dhyāna clear through the sphere of nothing-at-all — do these two accounts not contradict one another? Answer: the first sūtra speaks of what draws forth the exhaustion of the outflows; the latter two sūtras speak of what it is achieved directly in dependence upon. Furthermore, the first sūtra speaks of the preparatory means; the latter two sūtras speak of its full accomplishment. Question: if so, why does it speak of "together with"? Answer: the very same word can shift in meaning depending on whether it refers to what precedes or what follows. As the World-Honored One states: "King Māndhātṛ, the very moment this notion arose together with him, thereupon fell from his high station"; and another sūtra states: "the very moment this notion arose together with them, those sentient beings thereupon perished"; and yet another sūtra states: "King Vemacitrin, the very moment this thought arose together with him, saw himself bound at once by five bonds" — in every one of these cases, the word "together with" is used to refer to what came before, in relation to what followed. The sūtra on cultivating the awakening-factor should be understood in just the same way.

Question: if a dharma has the first dhyāna as its cause, is that dharma the first dhyāna's fruit? Conversely, if a dharma is the first dhyāna's fruit, does that dharma have the first dhyāna as its cause? Answer: whatever dharma has the first dhyāna as its cause is indeed the first dhyāna's fruit. There is a dharma that is the first dhyāna's fruit yet does not have the first dhyāna as its cause — namely, the severing of the bonds of the three realms, together with the first dhyāna's own fruit consisting in the desire realm's transformation-fruit-mind class. The very same question and answer should also be formed for the second dhyāna clear through the fourth dhyāna; for the formless attainments, only the severing of the bonds should be spoken of. Question: whenever one relinquishes a mind belonging to the first dhyāna's own ground and gains a mind belonging to the second dhyāna's own ground, does the first dhyāna's own mind always cease at the very same moment the second dhyāna's own mind arises? Answer: a full tetralemma should be formed. As for the first alternative: this refers to the moment when, based on the stage of proximate access, or the meditative interval, or the second dhyāna's own proximate access, one becomes free from the defilement of the Brahma-world without ever entering a fundamental ground — at that moment, one relinquishes the defiled mind belonging to the first dhyāna's own ground and gains the undefiled mind belonging to the second dhyāna's own ground, yet this is not a case of the former ceasing at the very same moment the latter arises. As for the second alternative: this refers to the moment of entering a concentration in sequential order, apart from the process of becoming free from defilement. As for the third alternative: this refers to the moment of dying in the first dhyāna and being reborn in the second dhyāna. As for the fourth alternative: this refers to every case excluded from those just described.

Question: whenever one relinquishes a mind belonging to the second dhyāna's own ground and gains a mind belonging to the first dhyāna's own ground, does the second dhyāna's own mind always cease at the very same moment the first dhyāna's own mind arises? Answer: a full tetralemma should be formed. As for the first alternative: this refers to the moment of giving rise to the desire realm's binding defilement and thereby regressing from the second dhyāna. As for the second alternative: this refers to the moment of entering a concentration in reverse sequential order. As for the third alternative: this refers to the moment of rebirth. As for the fourth alternative: this refers to every case excluded from those just described. Question: whenever one relinquishes the defilement belonging to the first dhyāna's own ground, does one thereby gain the wholesome dharmas belonging to the second dhyāna's own ground? Answer: a full tetralemma should be formed. As for the first alternative: this refers to the moment of entering the path of seeing, across its four mind-moments, based on the stage of proximate access, or the first dhyāna, or the meditative interval. As for the second alternative: this refers to the moment of entering the path of seeing based on the second, third, or fourth dhyāna, and the moment when a noble one becomes free from the defilement of the seven grounds above. As for the third alternative: this refers to the moment of becoming free from the defilement of a dhyāna. As for the fourth alternative: this refers to every case excluded from those just described. Question: whenever one relinquishes the excellent qualities belonging to the second dhyāna's own ground, does one thereby gain the defilement belonging to the first dhyāna's own ground? Answer: a full tetralemma should be formed. As for the first alternative: this refers to the moment of regressing from a higher ground's own antidote, together with the second-dhyāna-ground excellent qualities cultivated in a higher ground. As for the second alternative: this refers to the moment of dying in a higher ground and being reborn in the desire realm or the Brahma-world. As for the third alternative: this refers to the moment of dying among the gods of pure radiance and being reborn in the desire realm or the Brahma-world, and to the moment of giving rise to a lower ground's own defilement and

thereby regressing from the second dhyāna. As for the fourth alternative: this refers to every case excluded from those just described. For the remaining concentrations, as appropriate, the very same question-and-answer analysis should likewise be formed.